This bill was passed one day before the rampage in Connecticut. It was a solid move for Michigan. I love it. ThinkProgress, the source of this story, naturally hates it. That makes me smile.

On Thursday, one day before the tragedy in Connecticut where at least 29 people were killed at an elementary school, the Republican-controlled Michigan legislature passed a bill that would allow people to bring guns into schools.

Amidst a lameduck session that has spawned a host of right-wing legislation, including a so-called “right-to-work” law and an extreme abortion ban, a “sweeping rewrite of Michigan’s concealed handgun law” was also approvedyesterday. The legislation changes Michigan’s gun laws in a number of ways, including making it easier for people to receive a gun permit and opening up “gun free zones,” including schools and elsewhere, to people carrying concealed firearms.

The legislation is the largest rewrite of Michigan’s concealed weapon law since lawmakers made hard-to-obtain permits much easier for adults to receive beginning July 2001. Applications exploded. There were 351,599 permit holders as of Dec. 1, one for every 20 adults.

Most of the attention on the new bill has focused on provisions allowing hidden handguns in places where they are now forbidden, such as schools, university dorms and classrooms, and sporting stadiums.

The bill now sits on Gov. Rick Snyder’s (R) desk, who must decide whether to approve or veto the legislation.

The gun laws in Connecticut are pretty tough. What law would have stopped a man willing to violate the law against shooting his mother? You know, the law against murder is pretty exhaustive. What law would the shooter have balked against violating?

Hopefully all states follow suit and allow law abiding citizens to carry anywhere including banks. It takes police on average 15 minutes to arrive. An armed citizen can stop it immediately. Banning guns in places only makes it easier for nut jobs. Allowing carry anywhere greatly reduces this. I am a law abiding citizen and i am always carrying to protect myself and those around me.

Why would any normal civilian need a gun? For hunting, yeah maybe…but apart from that, is a civilian with no training expected to dive into a barrel-roll and start firing off rounds at the bad guy in the bank?? Given the fact that 70% of such crimes are committed to support substance abuse, I don’t think that drawing a gun on a junkie will have a happy ending. Also, you’re not gonna kill the guy for robbing a bank at gunpoint – he needs to fire first, or you’re gonna go to jail, not him.
Lastly – buying a gun represents the intention to kill. Are you so sure that making it easy for every goddamned idiot on the street to own a gun is such a good idea? Think about it.

Not even a single decent argument in that little tirade.
According to you, having a gun is the same as having a snow cone, canoe, or minivan? Seriously? Are you stupid or something?
Guns are not toys meant for your enjoyment. Unless you want to participate in shooting sports, or hunting trips, or the armed forces, you do NOT need guns for legitimate purposes.

You attempted to base your argument against other people owning guns on your opinion as to what people “need”. Need has nothing to do with what people own in our society. Your opinions regarding what people need and don’t need are irrelevant.

See, the thing is, I don’t have to limit scenarios to your version of events. There are an infinite number of potential scenarios and you don’t get to define them. Furthermore, I don’t have to justify my right to self-defense. Not to you or anyone else.

Oh no, but you do. You have to justify the fact that you want a gun, considering the fact that you might shoot me with it.
Next thing I know, you will be wanting a grenade launcher and a bazooka to defend yourself from those “attackers”.

Why would any normal civilian need a gun? For hunting, yeah maybe…but apart from that, is a civilian with no training expected to dive into a barrel-roll and start firing off rounds at the bad guy in the bank??

When some thug kicks in your door or pulls you out of your car with his gun, or some creeper breaks in to kidnap your 6 year old daughter, come back and we’ll talk about why a person might need one.

Given the fact that 70% of such crimes are committed to support substance abuse, I don’t think that drawing a gun on a junkie will have a happy ending.

70%? You pulled that straight out of your posterior region.

As a former police officer whose very first arrest was a 3-time loser crack dealer/crack head with a .38 Rossi – I – as an absolute certainty, could not disagree with you more.

Also, you’re not gonna kill the guy for robbing a bank at gunpoint – he needs to fire first, or you’re gonna go to jail, not him.

No. You are wrong. He does not. If a person points a firearm at you, they (legally speaking) have intent to kill or do great bodily harm. You are justified in ending the threat.

Lastly – buying a gun represents the intention to kill. Are you so sure that making it easy for every goddamned idiot on the street to own a gun is such a good idea? Think about it.

For some people, buying a gun shows intent to shoot paper plates. For most, it illustrates a willingness to defend one’s self using mechanical advantage to equalize, offset, or mitigate risks posed by a person who is obviously more-willing to use violence than the average citizen.

Do I want every g-d idiot on the street to have a gun? No, I’d prefer that you don’t.

First off…sorry, I did not read your reply…didn’t load it real time.
Anyway, 70% is the approximate figure for major urban areas around the globe. By your own admission, your first encounter was a drug-related bust.
If a thug kicks in my door, or kidnaps my daughter, why do you think I would have a handgun tucked away in my pajamas/pants? Besides, you sound like a trained guy…but what about a civilian who has no training? He’s more likely to kill his daughter than harm the kidnapper.
Also, you might want to read up a little on global legislature. In the fights against the IRA, the SAS was forced to wait until the enemy fired first. That was the rule, even for highly trained soldiers.

But, that would be illegal, and you would probably go to jail – even for defending yourself.
And don’t you think that, maybe, we shouLD take the guns away from those who can’t shoot on target? Listen to yourself, man…you know you don’t make sense…a badly placed bullet from someone’s gun could end your life….

No it wouldn’t. Both brandishing a gun and threatening at close range with a knife are well established in jurisprudence as reasonable justification for self defense and justifiable homicide.

Lots of things could take my life. I am not inclined to give up my rights and freedoms in an attempt to eliminate every potential danger. This is especially true when I would be just trading one danger for another.

Nota, I am inclined to think this joker is from the UK, hence bull crap like this…

“In the fights against the IRA, the SAS was forced to wait until the enemy fired first.”

All that says, is the pathetic state of the British Military and its limp wristed politicians who probably would like the SAS and IRA to “put the kettle on and sit down and have a cup of tea and a jolly good chat to sort things out”.

Anyway, 70% is the approximate figure for major urban areas around the globe. By your own admission, your first encounter was a drug-related bust.

I still think the number is bogus, but for the sake of argument, I’ll agree. My first bust was not drug-related. No drugs were recovered. He was a dealer/user on parole, in possession of a firearm. (A criminal who doesn’t follow the law that banned him from having guns? Imagine that.)

If a thug kicks in my door, or kidnaps my daughter, why do you think I would have a handgun tucked away in my pajamas/pants? Besides, you sound like a trained guy…but what about a civilian who has no training? He’s more likely to kill his daughter than harm the kidnapper.

So, if training is the qualifier, why would you automatically make the logical jump to no civilians owning firearms. Why not require training? I know ZERO shooters who don’t practice. None.

Also, you might want to read up a little on global legislature. In the fights against the IRA, the SAS was forced to wait until the enemy fired first. That was the rule, even for highly trained soldiers.

This is America, Zed. We are not bound by any nation’s laws but ours. Even then, it falls to the state level. The Brits are not, have never been, and will never be an example which I will use, in an attempt to debate the virtues of using a firearm to neutralize a threat. Their policies are backwards, and dangerous to their citizenry. But hey, at least they get to have the moral superiority of being a victim.

(Oh, and British gun crime increased considerably after the ban. Try again.)

That was an excellent reply. I agree with most of what you said…and that is why I believe that American gun laws should be tougher, not easier…making intensive training
with arms mandatory.
Also, criminals will break the law and carry guns illegally…that will always happen.
But just cause they do it, doesn’t mean everybody should…because at the end of the day, if we all choose to ignore the law or change it according to our whim, the government is gone and the country will become an anarchy…survival of the fittest

I agree with most of what you said…and that is why I believe that American gun laws should be tougher, not easier…making intensive training with arms mandatory.

That’s not what you said. You opened up with (paraphrasing) ‘no civilians should own guns’.

Also, criminals will break the law and carry guns illegally…that will always happen.
But just cause they do it, doesn’t mean everybody should…because at the end of the day, if we all choose to ignore the law or change it according to our whim, the government is gone and the country will become an anarchy…survival of the fittest

Just because they do it – is precisely why I will always own firearms. You seem to assign malicious intent to the mere act of owning a firearm which seriously leads me to believe that you are a foreigner. Am I right?

“Why would any normal civilian need a gun? ”
My exact statement…it wasn’t even a statement. It was a question…open to reasonable replies. Don’t put words in my mouth.
And I’m not a foreigner. Cheers. 🙂

I didn’t put words in your mouth. I noted the paraphrasing. Your comments have indicated a belief that no civilians should own guns, because you assign malicious intent to the mere act of ownership. You acquiesced to the training argument, but you don’t really believe that, as is evinced by your many replies.

Dude…relax! Defend yourself all you want! I’m not against it…I never said I was. You are conveniently misinterpreting my statements the way you want to understand them. Like I said…think before replying.

These are just two examples that happened within 30 miles of my home. I also have an alarm system, but I’m not going to wait 5 minutes for the police to show up if someone is trying to take one of my daughters.